Please remove Maelstrom II Emails from Space Threads

Somehow my Maelstrom II mailing list has been included in Space-related
threads.
My apologies to Maelstrom II crew, consultants, and friends for the
unintended space-related emails.
Please take a moment to remove Maelstrom II email addresses (at end of
my reply) from any future space-related replies.

Sincerely,
Jeroen

================
Maelstrom II mailing list:

Paul Werbos wrote:
> At 12:05 AM 09/25/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> Decision options don't have to be deterministic at all.
>
>
> Of course they don't.
>
> I mentioned how we have developed the mathematics for a new class of
> stochastic optimization methods which, for
> the first time, overcome the classic curse of dimensionality which has
> limited well-known
> classical methods like decision trees.
>
> However, I also mentioned a basic feature of these methods --
>
> under situations of serious uncertainty (both good uncertainty and
> bad, hopes and fears),
> the optimal strategy which pops out is often NOT a rigid future plan
> or rigid commitment, say, to
> a single energy source for the entire world. Even simple decision
> trees lead us to things
> like wildcat drilling, buying information, and keeping options open to
> the extent that
> this does not lead to paralysis or unaffordable delay. More
> sophisticated
> intelligent systems can account for the fact that there is OTHER
> INTELLIGENCE
> out there as well, such as that of energy producers; if we make
> decisions without
> accounting for that reality, we are acting on a false premise.
>
> One question in that vein: is it possible that there is a creative
> chemist out there who
> knows a noncarbon liquid fuel better for cars than hydrazine hydrate
> (HH)? Perhaps even in
> Exxon Research itself? I wouldn't assert that there is, but it's a
> possibility worth
> allowing for -- along with a lot of other possibilities.
>
> But still I have to admit that I see more hope for better batteries
> right now than for
> anything else to store energy for cars and trucks. As an example,
> someone really needs to follow up on the
> kind of new directions proposed by Sadoway last week... click on
> Sadoway at
> http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp..
>
> Best of luck to us all,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Technology drive market or allowing market force to drive energy technologies?

At 12:05 AM 09/25/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Decision options don't have to be deterministic at all.

Of course they don't.

I mentioned how we have developed the mathematics for a new class of
stochastic optimization methods which, for
the first time, overcome the classic curse of dimensionality which
has limited well-known
classical methods like decision trees.

However, I also mentioned a basic feature of these methods --

under situations of serious uncertainty (both good uncertainty and
bad, hopes and fears),
the optimal strategy which pops out is often NOT a rigid future plan
or rigid commitment, say, to
a single energy source for the entire world. Even simple decision
trees lead us to things
like wildcat drilling, buying information, and keeping options open
to the extent that
this does not lead to paralysis or unaffordable delay. More sophisticated
intelligent systems can account for the fact that there is OTHER INTELLIGENCE
out there as well, such as that of energy producers; if we make
decisions without
accounting for that reality, we are acting on a false premise.

One question in that vein: is it possible that there is a creative
chemist out there who
knows a noncarbon liquid fuel better for cars than hydrazine hydrate
(HH)? Perhaps even in
Exxon Research itself? I wouldn't assert that there is, but it's a
possibility worth
allowing for -- along with a lot of other possibilities.

But still I have to admit that I see more hope for better batteries
right now than for
anything else to store energy for cars and trucks. As an example,
someone really needs to follow up on the
kind of new directions proposed by Sadoway last week... click on Sadoway at
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp..

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

RE: hydrazine hydrate and energy from space

Hi, folks!

I am sorry if I came across too strong on the hydrazine hydrate option.

Looking more closely at the Daihatsu article... their proposal for how to
store the stuff on a car sounds a bit like a kludge, and they say
nothing about fuel flexibility.

In preliminary checks, I haven't yet heard any problems with HH
compared to say, methanol,
for hoses and valves and engines. But what they say about the gas
tank itself is not so encouraging.

--------------------------------------------------

Let's go back to the context.

There is something unpleasant about the idea of powering the US car
and truck fleet from reprocessing
fumes from coal plants.

Worst case -- the best we KNOW we can do cost-effectively with cars
is optimally
controlled plug-in hybrids with a 40 mile driving range, leaving us
still with about one-quarter of
the energy to come from liquid fuels, unless we cut into people's
standard of living.
Maybe biofuels can supply all that, if we have full GEM flexibility
in cars; maybe not.

So people have asked -- what could energy from space do here, to
improve the situation?

MAINLY it could supply electricity, which is not at all the same
thing. We already have electricity,
and the means to expand it. Energy from space can help us get better
and maybe even cheaper electricity,
but that doesn't really help us with the car fuel problem as such.

So some people have suggested... what about OTHER liquid fuels
besides biofuels?

It they have to have carbon, and we want some degree of economic
reality, it comes back to processing
waste streams from coal-fired plants. Unless we can think of something better.

This in turn comes back to an old question which has been nagging at me:

What are the chances of non-carbon LIQUID fuels? (Given that straight
hydrogen really is off the map.)

HH is better than hydrogen, but that may be like saying disease is
better than death;
it is true, but is it good enough?

*I really regret seeming to recommend that GEMH flexibility should be
an explicit part of
any legislation this year. It is certainly premature, at best, when
the questions are unresolved.
A better way for folks like the oil companies would be to support the
GEM proposals already there,
recognizing that it opens up markets for many CARBON-BASED
alternative fuels that are very real
product possibilities for them near-term, and that it MAY allow other
possibilities.*

An obvious question is: is HH really the best that NAIST and Toyota
could find, for noncarbon based fuels for
cars, after a very extensive and well-informed search?

Are we stuck with 40-mile batteries, biofuels and exhaust from coal
plants, short of a breakthrough?

One corollary, of course: since breakthroughs in batteries seem
POSSIBLE, we should be doing a whole
lot more to try to get them.

For a proposal to make this real, go to

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp,
and then click on "Sadoway."

And there are a few other possibilities...

And there may yet be a noncarbon liquid fuel better for cars than HH.
Who knows?
Still, HH for aviation still sounds worth considering.

Best of luck to us all

RE: [global-energy] hydrazine hydrate and market-based energychoices in general

Dear friends, I followed your excited discussions about HH and other
alternative fuel options and would like to refer to my presentation in
Seattle, where I pointed out that the fuel age will be over very soon for
obvious reasons: low thermal engine efficiency, pollution, health hazards,
logistics, cost, resource depletion etc. - all thermal machines belong to
the technical museum for good, except maybe for space propulsion. Forget any
fuels including hydrogen, hydrogen peroxide, fossil derivates, bio fuels
(stealing fertile soils from food production of a growing and hungry
population) etc. We live in the electrical age for the remainder of
humanity - remember my speech "Energy in the next 1000 years" !! See also
www.uniseo.org > Clean Transport.
Kind regards Gustav

Gustav R. Grob, President
International Clean Energy Consortium ICEC
Gewerbezone 3d, CH-6315 Morgarten-Zug
T: +41-41-754-4090 F: +41-41-750-9020 E: grob@icec.ch
Chairman of ISO/TC203/WG3 Energy Systems Analyses & Statistics
Founder-Chairman of ISO/TC197 on Hydrogen Energy Technologies
Board Member of the International Energy Foundation IEF
Executive Secretary of ISEO, Geneva
POB 200, CH-1211 Geneva 20
T: +41-22-910-3006 F: +41-22-910-3014
E: info@uniseo.org mailto:info@uniseo.org
I:

www.uniseo.org <http://www.uniseo.org/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Feng Hsu [mailto:Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV]
Sent: Montag, 24. September 2007 23:15

Paul,

"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
not have to be "deterministic". In fact, it should be probabilistic-based or
use of both approaches. I agree that we can take full advantages of the
market forces (same as making use of full advantages of the positive side of
the human nature) while avoiding allow the market force to drive everything
to the realm of unknowns. Because in doing so, it makes no difference from
allowing the use of all attributes of human nature to drive the future of
our own fate. Again, it is a choice that human must make. If we allow the
commercial force to drive our economy, then there is a price to pay and a
risk to take. If the risk is too high, in terms of self-destructions and
man-made planetary ruins, then such risk level is simply unacceptable to
humanity!

The Russians and the Chinese style planning economy in communist forms were
extreme forms of the so-called planning socialist economies. The failure of
their planned economies was in their anti-democracy and anti-human nature
political system. Just to the contrary, under such corrupted political
system, the intelligent members of their society, the well-educated folks
were largely oppressed and even eliminated for the sake of fooling the mass
public just to try to hanging on to their power at whatever costs.....

Yes, there is also some price to pay for the consumers in adapting to a
clean energy source (hopefully for a short period), as far as such price is
relatively much lower: like what the German government is doing to their
consumers by charging a few cents extra per kilowatt to subsidize their
solar energy R&Ds, and like the states of California (or Nevada and Utah)
are charging a bit more from their citizens to subsidize the solar energy
development, and like what China is doing to require all public buildings 4
or more floors to install solar power systems. I am talking about things
like such government guided human creativities, and these are obviously the
right thing to do, in stead of curving to the pressures of the current
market (or political) forces that are primarily driven by industrial
establishments and by human greedy!

Best regards,

Feng

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:pwerbos@nsf.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; 'Global Energy Network'; 'Richard Godwin'; 'Paul J.
Werbos, Dr.'; BobKrone@aol.com
Subject: RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 03:30 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for
>maximizing profits of the established industries given the present
>market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice
>for humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing
>commercial market force to drive the future of our economy, or should
>we doing things
a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for
>discussions at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt
>very strongly that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we
>will be encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if
>we choose the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies
>(especially energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.

It is not at all a cheap shot to say that many very intelligent people in
Russia took a very similar position circa 1920 -- why do we not decide on a
better plan in advance, and stick to it? And if oil lobbyists get in the
way, why not do what was done recently to the Yukos guy?

It really worked to some extent for awhile... but as technology became more
and more complex, deterministic planning in advance from the center became
less and less viable. It collapsed. There comes a time when honest,
competent people need to admit that NO ONE ON EARTH has enough knowledge to
mandate such a fixed blueprint, defining the "winners."

DOE (having many folks who think a bit like some of those wise folks) has
discovered how it is possible to MAKE technology X the RELATIVE winner, by
simply starving all competent or high-potential alternatives. Space solar
power is not on their list for funding.

Furthermore -- those of us who fully understand the mathematics of trying to
find an optimal strategy of action in a nonlinear stochastic world
understand how the optimal strategy is typically just too complex for
planners to understand, or for the political process to handle. It is simply
a lot more efficient to WORK WITH NATURE, as they say in classical medicine,
rather than neglecting what it offers.
We don't need to let the market decide EVERYTHING, in order to get great
advantage from it.
Until this month, I thought that the new China government really understood
that.

I do not see China doing as well as the US, even, in following up on serious
possibilities for energy from space.
Whatever the reasons and whatever the excuses -- "by their fruits you will
know them."
Though I hope that both countries (both sets of people) have a lot more hope
to do things that are genuinely useful in the future.

In the case of car fuel, the lowest COST of generating liquid fuels is a
legitimate factor in making the future decision, as are consumer
preferences. The market tells us real information much better than any other
way to get the information. We will probably be able to improve on market
information later, ONCE WE HAVE IT as a starting point -- but we need to
have it first.

I do not see China passing laws requiring GEMH fuel flexibility OR global
progress on plug-in hybrids either.

Also.. the optimal strategy will involve an adaptive MIX of fuels over time,
different in different market segments and in different parts of the world.
One meataxe solution developed in Washington or Beijing would not fit the
whole world at all times! Because oil dependency is SO dangerous and growing
SO quickly, we cannot afford a less than optimal strategy which does not
mobilize ALL WE HAVE to make our world safer.

Best of luck, Paul

_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:global-energy@mp.cim3.net Msg Archives:
http://mp.cim3.net/forum/global-energy/

Technology drive market or allowing market force to drive energy technologies?

Paul,

Decision options don't have to be deterministic at all. There can be
conditional options and choice of policies for technological and economic
development strategies. Our options today could be (by rank of expected
returns) "A" conditional of "C*D" or else "B" conditional of "E*F" or else
"C or C'" conditional of "G*H*I...."; It can be a stochastic-based decision
process that taking into considerations of both known & unknown parameters
and their uncertainty distributions while maximizing our expected societal
returns. In fact it's kind of multi-objective and multi-constraints
mathematical programming issues in technical terms. Say for instance, if the
US government allowed large amount of R&D funds for the nuclear industry and
the policy continued for nearly half a century, then it is wise to continue
the level of support if 40 decades later we do see that nuclear energy have
helped solving the bulk of our energy problems and that the unintended
troubles or consequences were not nearly what we all see today. Otherwise,
we need to reduce (or even stop) the support for nuclear power and allowing
options of renewable energies like solar/SSP or others to have a chance,
shouldn't we? If we allowed the creation of nuclear technology by ourselves,
in theory it is not possible to prevent other nations to do the same thing
or preventing others to follow the creative footsteps of our won fellow
human beings on the planet? That is why on the one hand nuclear brought us
good life styles of massive electricity consumptions while at the meantime
we are so busy and so close to going into wars to fight against others from
having the same technology. Doesn't that the neat returns of "improving our
quality of lives" through technology creations simply gets diminished by the
same very technology we have developed?! This is precisely why we need to be
smarter on technology creations and can't just do anything without using our
brains that God gave us for a reason.

SSP concept was studied and killed in the late 1970s by then the powerful
nuclear lobbyists and never allowed a chance and the government is now
continuing to ignore any activities in this regard. Isn't it a wise policy?
That is why I said nuclear has had 40 years of chance to thrive and it did
not meet expectations/conditions of what were believed to be, and it
certainly has not been too cheap for the utilities to even give up their
need of metering the consumers.....

Humans are capable of creating both constructive and destructive forces and
making tremendous progress toward economic developments while at the same
time we also making tremendous amount of troubles for ourselves and that is
why we see WARs and destructions on a daily basis. What we need to do is to
maximizing the constructive side of human activities while trying hard to
minimize the destructive side of our activities, and this will never be
possible if we just allow the "market force" (or raw human nature) to drive
the fate of our future. If we do things well, we should see relative
enduring world peace and quality of lives for majority of our fellow beings.
Otherwise, if we do see too many wars and too many issues and troubles for
everyone to bear, then we haven't done things so well, haven't we?!

Best of luck to us all,

Feng

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:47 PM
To: Feng.Hsu; 'Global Energy Network'; 'Richard Godwin'; of funding
BobKrone
Subject: RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 05:15 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
>not have to be "deterministic".

Making **A** choice for what **IS BEST** implies certainty about what is
best.
That's not a stochastic policy.

If we allow the
>commercial force to drive our economy, then there is a price to pay and a
>risk to take. If the risk is too high, in terms of self-destructions and
>man-made planetary ruins, then such risk level is simply unacceptable to
>humanity!

I have never said to use ONLY the raw market. I have actually called
for intervention
to strengthen market competition, and that is a kind of intervention.
And lots more effective R&D.

But as a practical matter, we cannot dictate a single energy source
or carrier for
the entire world. Improved market competition is an important PART of
the solution,
a tool we must make use of, along with all other tools.

I do not see China guiding us to a faster deployment of space solar power,
even though they trust markets less than we do.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

Arthur C. Clarke's Maelstrom II Update: Third of Edit Locked!

Dear Maesltrom II Crew, Consultants, and Friends,

I am pleased to inform you that the first third of the Maelstrom II edit is locked!

The website has been updated with these latest animatics:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/MaelstromII.html

There is now a link in the left sidebar called Animatics.
You may need to refresh your browser to see the updates.

Click on the Animatics link to go to the animatics page.

Now that these shots have been locked, this means that we can assign visual effects tasks for the shots, toward the completion of the film.

Best wishes,

--
-jeroen lapre
digital artist
www.ilm.com

producer/director
www.distant-galaxy.com
making science compelling

RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 05:15 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
>not have to be "deterministic".

Making **A** choice for what **IS BEST** implies certainty about what is best.
That's not a stochastic policy.

If we allow the
>commercial force to drive our economy, then there is a price to pay and a
>risk to take. If the risk is too high, in terms of self-destructions and
>man-made planetary ruins, then such risk level is simply unacceptable to
>humanity!

I have never said to use ONLY the raw market. I have actually called
for intervention
to strengthen market competition, and that is a kind of intervention.
And lots more effective R&D.

But as a practical matter, we cannot dictate a single energy source
or carrier for
the entire world. Improved market competition is an important PART of
the solution,
a tool we must make use of, along with all other tools.

I do not see China guiding us to a faster deployment of space solar power,
even though they trust markets less than we do.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

Paul,

"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
not have to be "deterministic". In fact, it should be probabilistic-based or
use of both approaches. I agree that we can take full advantages of the
market forces (same as making use of full advantages of the positive side of
the human nature) while avoiding allow the market force to drive everything
to the realm of unknowns. Because in doing so, it makes no difference from
allowing the use of all attributes of human nature to drive the future of
our own fate. Again, it is a choice that human must make. If we allow the
commercial force to drive our economy, then there is a price to pay and a
risk to take. If the risk is too high, in terms of self-destructions and
man-made planetary ruins, then such risk level is simply unacceptable to
humanity!

The Russians and the Chinese style planning economy in communist forms were
extreme forms of the so-called planning socialist economies. The failure of
their planned economies was in their anti-democracy and anti-human nature
political system. Just to the contrary, under such corrupted political
system, the intelligent members of their society, the well-educated folks
were largely oppressed and even eliminated for the sake of fooling the mass
public just to try to hanging on to their power at whatever costs.....

Yes, there is also some price to pay for the consumers in adapting to a
clean energy source (hopefully for a short period), as far as such price is
relatively much lower: like what the German government is doing to their
consumers by charging a few cents extra per kilowatt to subsidize their
solar energy R&Ds, and like the states of California (or Nevada and Utah)
are charging a bit more from their citizens to subsidize the solar energy
development, and like what China is doing to require all public buildings 4
or more floors to install solar power systems. I am talking about things
like such government guided human creativities, and these are obviously the
right thing to do, in stead of curving to the pressures of the current
market (or political) forces that are primarily driven by industrial
establishments and by human greedy!

Best regards,

Feng

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:pwerbos@nsf.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; 'Global Energy Network'; 'Richard Godwin'; 'Paul J.
Werbos, Dr.'; BobKrone@aol.com
Cc: edillin@lucasfilm.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net; missingpixels@gmail.com;
george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; lzielinski@comcast.net; sontermj@tpg.com.au;
sel@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov;
Aweisbrod@aol.com; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com; mindsmagic@nc.rr.com;
cacarberry@yahoo.com; info@hobbyspace.com; HowlBloom@aol.com;
jlowden@skysound.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; willjwatson@gmail.com;
lanny@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; dslavin@ilm.com;
jamieson@ilm.com; kcox12@houston.rr.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com;
chrism@ilm.com; lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com;
ellen@ellenmeijers.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com; nansens@centurytel.net;
amaraa@gmail.com; arcoscielos@yahoo.com; jeroen@ilm.com;
ericberm@bermweb.net; scurran@ilm.com; joshua@xprize.org;
hjarrett@futron.com; brianf@ilm.com; alx@ilm.com;
gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com;
bpittman@alliancespace.net; damian@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com;
mho@ilm.com; chrisbarnett@mac.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com;
mitc1615@bellsouth.net; bfrey@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com;
bmh@evolve.org; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; hyman@ilm.com;
info@ellenmeijers.com; jeffh@ilm.com; CRD9138@aol.com;
jthalterman@comcast.net; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; aec@ilm.com;
charleslurio@mac.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org; amtravis@ilm.com;
jediarizona@yahoo.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; anewall@comcast.net;
fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; moh@ilm.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net;
samurai@ilm.com; wmccoy@ilm.com; Jamesmsnead@aol.com; sanders@ilm.com;
dlivings@davidlivingston.com; phoebehelefante@gmail.com;
Manny@Lunarexplorer.com; Borntobewired311@aol.com; mattpb@ilm.com;
george@nss.org; johng@telascience.org; mikedludlam@hotmail.com;
tallguy@ilm.com; Wingod@assure.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; BobKrone@aol.com;
kimdamian@comcast.net; michael@clauss.com; rmains@mainsgate.com;
robin.snelson@gmail.com; joberg@houston.rr.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com;
smack@ilm.com; toddda2@todddaniele.com; ricktumlinson@gmail.com;
wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; cape@ilm.com
Subject: RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 03:30 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for maximizing
>profits of the established industries given the present market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice for
>humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing commercial
>market force to drive the future of our economy, or should we doing things
a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for discussions
>at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt very strongly
>that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we will be
>encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if we choose
>the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies (especially
>energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.

It is not at all a cheap shot to say that many very intelligent
people in Russia
took a very similar position circa 1920 -- why do we not decide on
a better plan in advance, and stick to it? And if oil lobbyists get
in the way, why not do
what was done recently to the Yukos guy?

It really worked to some extent for awhile... but as technology became more
and more complex, deterministic planning in advance from the center became
less and less viable. It collapsed. There comes a time when honest,
competent people
need to admit that NO ONE ON EARTH has enough knowledge to mandate
such a fixed blueprint, defining the "winners."

DOE (having many folks who think a bit like some of those wise folks)
has discovered how
it is possible to MAKE technology X the RELATIVE winner, by simply
starving all competent
or high-potential alternatives. Space solar power is not on their
list for funding.

Furthermore -- those of us who fully understand the mathematics
of trying to find an optimal strategy of action in a nonlinear
stochastic world understand how
the optimal strategy is typically just too complex for planners to
understand, or for
the political process to handle. It is simply a lot more efficient to
WORK WITH NATURE,
as they say in classical medicine, rather than neglecting what it offers.
We don't need to let the market decide EVERYTHING, in order to get
great advantage from it.
Until this month, I thought that the new China government really
understood that.

I do not see China doing as well as the US, even, in following up on
serious possibilities for energy from space.
Whatever the reasons and whatever the excuses -- "by their fruits you
will know them."
Though I hope that both countries (both sets of people) have a lot
more hope to do things that are genuinely useful in the future.

In the case of car fuel, the lowest COST of generating liquid fuels
is a legitimate factor in making
the future decision, as are consumer preferences. The market tells us
real information much better
than any other way to get the information. We will probably be able
to improve on market information later,
ONCE WE HAVE IT as a starting point -- but we need to have it first.

I do not see China passing laws requiring GEMH fuel flexibility OR
global progress on plug-in hybrids either.

Also.. the optimal strategy will involve an adaptive MIX of fuels
over time, different in different market segments
and in different parts of the world. One meataxe solution developed
in Washington or Beijing would not fit the whole
world at all times! Because oil dependency is SO dangerous and
growing SO quickly, we cannot
afford a less than optimal strategy which does not mobilize ALL WE
HAVE to make our world safer.

Best of luck,

Paul

RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 03:30 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for maximizing
>profits of the established industries given the present market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice for
>humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing commercial
>market force to drive the future of our economy, or should we doing things a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for discussions
>at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt very strongly
>that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we will be
>encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if we choose
>the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies (especially
>energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.

It is not at all a cheap shot to say that many very intelligent
people in Russia
took a very similar position circa 1920 -- why do we not decide on
a better plan in advance, and stick to it? And if oil lobbyists get
in the way, why not do
what was done recently to the Yukos guy?

It really worked to some extent for awhile... but as technology became more
and more complex, deterministic planning in advance from the center became
less and less viable. It collapsed. There comes a time when honest,
competent people
need to admit that NO ONE ON EARTH has enough knowledge to mandate
such a fixed blueprint, defining the "winners."

DOE (having many folks who think a bit like some of those wise folks)
has discovered how
it is possible to MAKE technology X the RELATIVE winner, by simply
starving all competent
or high-potential alternatives. Space solar power is not on their
list for funding.

Furthermore -- those of us who fully understand the mathematics
of trying to find an optimal strategy of action in a nonlinear
stochastic world understand how
the optimal strategy is typically just too complex for planners to
understand, or for
the political process to handle. It is simply a lot more efficient to
WORK WITH NATURE,
as they say in classical medicine, rather than neglecting what it offers.
We don't need to let the market decide EVERYTHING, in order to get
great advantage from it.
Until this month, I thought that the new China government really
understood that.

I do not see China doing as well as the US, even, in following up on
serious possibilities for energy from space.
Whatever the reasons and whatever the excuses -- "by their fruits you
will know them."
Though I hope that both countries (both sets of people) have a lot
more hope to do things that are genuinely useful in the future.

In the case of car fuel, the lowest COST of generating liquid fuels
is a legitimate factor in making
the future decision, as are consumer preferences. The market tells us
real information much better
than any other way to get the information. We will probably be able
to improve on market information later,
ONCE WE HAVE IT as a starting point -- but we need to have it first.

I do not see China passing laws requiring GEMH fuel flexibility OR
global progress on plug-in hybrids either.

Also.. the optimal strategy will involve an adaptive MIX of fuels
over time, different in different market segments
and in different parts of the world. One meataxe solution developed
in Washington or Beijing would not fit the whole
world at all times! Because oil dependency is SO dangerous and
growing SO quickly, we cannot
afford a less than optimal strategy which does not mobilize ALL WE
HAVE to make our world safer.

Best of luck,

Paul

RE: [global-energy] hydrazine hydrate

I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for maximizing
profits of the established industries given the present market-driven (or
money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice for
humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing commercial
market force to drive the future of our economy, or should we doing things a
bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for discussions
at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt very strongly
that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we will be
encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if we choose
the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies (especially
energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.

Of course, it is hard for us to recognize which are the "better
technologies" for the future and which are not?! Well, if we really want to
follow the right logic and philosophy of allowing better technology to drive
for better future, it is not so hard for us to set up some systemic set of
requirement and criteria (at the least) to make sound assessment of all
potential technologies. This is why I am for "guided human creativities"
rather than for market-driven human creativities which are largely random
processes that you will never know what kind of uncertainties lay ahead of
human fate? Yes, the random creation of technologies such as the nuclear
fission or combustion heat engines might have brought new civilizations and
new economies, but it is also truly subject the fate of humanity to the
random consequences of any such random technology creations. In other words,
should Madam Curie understood the risk prospects of a human self-destruction
by nuclear wars in just several decades later after her lab experiment, I
bet she probably would second thought about her research direction in such a
deadly destructive force?! We were a lot closer in ruining the planet all
together back in 1962 than most of us would believe, weren't we? The modern
civilization only lasted a few hundred years since the industrial revolution
(a revolution created by random human creativity), and yet mankind have
gotten extremely close to the risk levels of self-destruction which could
have wiped out of our existence from this planet where our ancestors have
lived and evolved (relatively peacefully) for millions or hundreds of
thousands years!

In short, if we know of an energy technology (or R&D direction) which is
obviously clean and is harmless to our environment/ecosystem's natural
balances, harmless to fellow human beings and if we know it is sustainable
and inexhaustible and it can be made affordable to everyone on every corner
on earth (or in space) based on proven human ingenuity and based on existing
R&D track records, why not advocating and guiding our won human creativities
in that promising direction (or directions)?

Best of luck to us all,

Feng

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:pwerbos@nsf.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:49 PM
To: Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; Global Energy Network; 'Richard Godwin'; 'Paul J.
Werbos, Dr.'; BobKrone@aol.com; 'Global Energy Network'
Cc: edillin@lucasfilm.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net; missingpixels@gmail.com;
george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; lzielinski@comcast.net; sontermj@tpg.com.au;
sel@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov;
Aweisbrod@aol.com; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com; mindsmagic@nc.rr.com;
cacarberry@yahoo.com; info@hobbyspace.com; HowlBloom@aol.com;
jlowden@skysound.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; willjwatson@gmail.com;
lanny@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; dslavin@ilm.com;
jamieson@ilm.com; kcox12@houston.rr.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com;
chrism@ilm.com; lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com;
ellen@ellenmeijers.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com; nansens@centurytel.net;
amaraa@gmail.com; arcoscielos@yahoo.com; jeroen@ilm.com;
ericberm@bermweb.net; scurran@ilm.com; joshua@xprize.org;
hjarrett@futron.com; brianf@ilm.com; alx@ilm.com;
gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com;
bpittman@alliancespace.net; damian@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com;
mho@ilm.com; chrisbarnett@mac.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com;
mitc1615@bellsouth.net; bfrey@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com;
bmh@evolve.org; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; hyman@ilm.com;
info@ellenmeijers.com; jeffh@ilm.com; CRD9138@aol.com;
jthalterman@comcast.net; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; aec@ilm.com;
charleslurio@mac.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org; amtravis@ilm.com;
jediarizona@yahoo.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; anewall@comcast.net;
fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; moh@ilm.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net;
samurai@ilm.com; wmccoy@ilm.com; Jamesmsnead@aol.com; sanders@ilm.com;
dlivings@davidlivingston.com; phoebehelefante@gmail.com;
Manny@Lunarexplorer.com; Borntobewired311@aol.com; mattpb@ilm.com;
george@nss.org; johng@telascience.org; mikedludlam@hotmail.com;
tallguy@ilm.com; Wingod@assure.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; BobKrone@aol.com;
kimdamian@comcast.net; michael@clauss.com; rmains@mainsgate.com;
robin.snelson@gmail.com; joberg@houston.rr.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com;
smack@ilm.com; toddda2@todddaniele.com; ricktumlinson@gmail.com;
wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; cape@ilm.com
Subject: Re: [global-energy] hydrazine hydrate

At 12:07 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Sorry that before I posted my comment on Sunday I didn't get chance to read
>several of your previous email traffic on the entire hydrazine hydrate (HH)
>fuel discussions. I thought you were just talking about hydrazine and not
HH
>liquid fuels.... my apology.

Thanks much, Feng!

And I apologize that my words were not as clear as they should have been.
Bit by bit, topic by topic, it takes time to learn words that are
less likely to be confusing...

>However, I still believe that "lugging our transportation to the energy of
>the Sun" is the best bet for the long (or even short) term profitability of
>the automakers or for the US competitiveness and national security in the
>increasingly global economy. Yes, there may be a need of a transition
period
>to use GEM plug-ins liquid fuels before the EVs could come to dominate the
>commercial market.

If we do everything right... I am glad that I do not know exactly
what the optimal mix
will be that emerges, in the future, between liquid fuels and direct
electricity storage (and X...),
if the human economy keeps making progress. Knowing that would
be a distraction from the task before us, of trying to get cars out
there that give
consumers and energy producers a choice... so that the marketplace can
decide,
and also so that all producers can have maximum incentive to provide us
with more secure sources of fuel.

-----------------------

Long-term... it is also possible that HH might survive as a fuel for
aircraft and spacecraft (where
the weight of batteries would be a more serious problem) even if it
doesn't for cars and trucks.
Running airplanes without permission from OPEC is also an issue..

Best regards,

Paul

Re: [global-energy] hydrazine hydrate

At 12:07 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Sorry that before I posted my comment on Sunday I didn't get chance to read
>several of your previous email traffic on the entire hydrazine hydrate (HH)
>fuel discussions. I thought you were just talking about hydrazine and not HH
>liquid fuels.... my apology.

Thanks much, Feng!

And I apologize that my words were not as clear as they should have been.
Bit by bit, topic by topic, it takes time to learn words that are
less likely to be confusing...

>However, I still believe that "lugging our transportation to the energy of
>the Sun" is the best bet for the long (or even short) term profitability of
>the automakers or for the US competitiveness and national security in the
>increasingly global economy. Yes, there may be a need of a transition period
>to use GEM plug-ins liquid fuels before the EVs could come to dominate the
>commercial market.

If we do everything right... I am glad that I do not know exactly
what the optimal mix
will be that emerges, in the future, between liquid fuels and direct
electricity storage (and X...),
if the human economy keeps making progress. Knowing that would
be a distraction from the task before us, of trying to get cars out
there that give
consumers and energy producers a choice... so that the marketplace can decide,
and also so that all producers can have maximum incentive to provide us
with more secure sources of fuel.

-----------------------

Long-term... it is also possible that HH might survive as a fuel for
aircraft and spacecraft (where
the weight of batteries would be a more serious problem) even if it
doesn't for cars and trucks.
Running airplanes without permission from OPEC is also an issue..

Best regards,

Paul

RE: hydrazine hydrate

Paul,

Sorry that before I posted my comment on Sunday I didn't get chance to read
several of your previous email traffic on the entire hydrazine hydrate (HH)
fuel discussions. I thought you were just talking about hydrazine and not HH
liquid fuels.... my apology.

However, I still believe that "lugging our transportation to the energy of
the Sun" is the best bet for the long (or even short) term profitability of
the automakers or for the US competitiveness and national security in the
increasingly global economy. Yes, there may be a need of a transition period
to use GEM plug-ins liquid fuels before the EVs could come to dominate the
commercial market.

Best regards,

Feng

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Godwin
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:45 AM
To: 'Paul J. Werbos, Dr.'; Feng; BobKrone; 'Global
Energy Network'
Subject: RE: hydrazine hydrate

Paul is right in many respects.

The issues are only partly engineering ones. We know that technically there
are many things that we can do with our engineering dream list.

But in the down and dirty daily grind of business, the profit motive is all
powerful. This all powerful icon is powered not just by technical knowledge,
but also by marketability to the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like it,
for whatever reason then it's not going to sell. There are many reasons that
the consumer might not buy something, one of which is the price. Most
"consumer units" just try to survive on a day to day basis. They would love
the leave a clean planet to their children, or probably not to buy oil from
the middle-east, but their pocketbook might dictate otherwise.

These are the issues that need equal billing with technical proficiency. If
we don't understand this then we have no chance convincing the power brokers
in industry. (not politicians because they'll support anything that might
help them get re-elected)

Am I preaching to the choir here?

RG

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J. Werbos, Dr.
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:06 PM
To: Feng; Bob; richard; 'Global Energy Network'

Subject: hydrazine hydrate

One of you stated:

>Look, High altitude wind can make 10,000 times more energy than the
>current human energy budget. So can deep geothermal. And solar
>is also adequate. All can be converted to electricity, and we can
>run transportation quite easily on 90% electricity.

Being an engineer, I know full well how reality is rather different
from the kind of logic that
somehow seems to survive in the worlds of talk shows and political advocacy.

To learn what real engineers think about these issues, look at least at:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp

IEEE -- the world's largest society of engineers and scientists --
strongly supports the idea of
electrification, as you can see from any of our slides. (Click on
names to see them.)
But as engineers, we have an obligation to present the truth as
objectively as we can.
We strongly support the research which has maximum POTENTIAL to lead
to all-electric cars
acceptable to the consumer. HOWEVER, it would be grossly dishonest at
this time to pretend
we know for sure that we are ready to produce batteries good enough
and cheap enough
to allow an all-electric car and truck system acceptable to the
consumer. And most of us
think it would be both unrealistic and undesirable to propose to
FORCE everyone to buy
cars with 40-mile driving range when 300-mile range is available elsewhere.

In fuzzy bar-room type thinking, people seem to feel you have to
worship the omnipotence and
omniscience of the One True Fuel, or else you must be a traitor, a
heretic and an enemy.
OK -- I declare that electricity is not the One True God. IEEE likewise.

But -- we will never be able to solve the complex energy problems we
face if we descend into
that kind of bar-room thinking and intellectual dishonesty.

It is not proper or politically realistic to imagine the US
government picking winners and losers
between oil and electricity. More precisely -- the only politically
realistic possibility out there
right now like that is continued enforcement of the monopoly by the
fuel which is presently in charge,
good old fashioned conventional oil. The most powerful advocate in
the US government right now
happens to represent a company with headquarters in Dubai.

Our only realistic hope is to build a coalition which represents the
more traditional American policy
of COMPETITION -- and that means opening up the market to stuff we might
like
and stuff we might not like, and let the consumers decide.

IN ADDITION: when people draw extreme conclusions based on the
assumption that methane, ethane, ethanol and methanol
are all the same thing, or that hydrazine is the same thing as
hydrazine hydrate with additives,
then we are in very deep trouble. I understand how people might not
know about these things, but to act dogmatic
AS IF one knew while getting it totally wrong... will not help us
solve the life-or-death problems we face.

========================================

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 9/23/2007
1:53 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 9/23/2007
1:53 PM

RE: hydrazine hydrate

Paul is right in many respects.

The issues are only partly engineering ones. We know that technically there
are many things that we can do with our engineering dream list.

But in the down and dirty daily grind of business, the profit motive is all
powerful. This all powerful icon is powered not just by technical knowledge,
but also by marketability to the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like it,
for whatever reason then it's not going to sell. There are many reasons that
the consumer might not buy something, one of which is the price. Most
"consumer units" just try to survive on a day to day basis. They would love
the leave a clean planet to their children, or probably not to buy oil from
the middle-east, but their pocketbook might dictate otherwise.

These are the issues that need equal billing with technical proficiency. If
we don't understand this then we have no chance convincing the power brokers
in industry. (not politicians because they'll support anything that might
help them get re-elected)

Am I preaching to the choir here?

RG

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J. Werbos, Dr. [mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:06 PM
To: Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; BobKrone@aol.com; richard@cgpublishing.com; 'Global
Energy Network'
Cc: HowlBloom@aol.com; robin.snelson@gmail.com; amaraa@gmail.com;
bobcitron@mac.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net; jz@howardbloom.net;
BobKrone@aol.com; tommatula@hotmail.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com;
dlivings@davidlivingston.com; bmh@evolve.org; ricktumlinson@gmail.com;
mindsmagic@nc.rr.com; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; bpittman@alliancespace.net;
John.c.mankins@artemisinnovation.com; wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov;
fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; joberg@houston.rr.com;
kcox12@houston.rr.com; george@nss.org; hjarrett@futron.com;
Borntobewired311@aol.com; mitc1615@bellsouth.net;
edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com; nansens@centurytel.net; Wingod@assure.com;
cacarberry@yahoo.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com; sontermj@tpg.com.au;
jthalterman@comcast.net; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov;
phoebehelefante@gmail.com; johng@telascience.org; lzielinski@comcast.net;
Jamesmsnead@aol.com; willjwatson@gmail.com; joshua@xprize.org;
info@hobbyspace.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com; Manny@Lunarexplorer.com;
gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; jediarizona@yahoo.com; Aweisbrod@aol.com;
charleslurio@mac.com; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; CRD9138@aol.com;
rmains@mainsgate.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org;
arcoscielos@yahoo.com; michael@clauss.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net;
jeroen@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; alx@ilm.com;
jeffh@ilm.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; bfrey@ilm.com; chrism@ilm.com;
wmccoy@ilm.com; scurran@ilm.com; hyman@ilm.com; sanders@ilm.com;
jamieson@ilm.com; mattpb@ilm.com; lanny@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com;
chrisbarnett@mac.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com;
toddda2@todddaniele.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com;
missingpixels@gmail.com; mikedludlam@hotmail.com; jlowden@skysound.com;
lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; info@ellenmeijers.com;
george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com; ellen@ellenmeijers.com;
ericberm@bermweb.net; anewall@comcast.net; kimdamian@comcast.net;
damian@ilm.com; amtravis@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; aec@ilm.com;
brianf@ilm.com; samurai@ilm.com; dslavin@ilm.com; tallguy@ilm.com;
sel@ilm.com; smack@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com;
edillin@lucasfilm.com; mho@ilm.com; cape@ilm.com; moh@ilm.com
Subject: hydrazine hydrate

One of you stated:

>Look, High altitude wind can make 10,000 times more energy than the
>current human energy budget. So can deep geothermal. And solar
>is also adequate. All can be converted to electricity, and we can
>run transportation quite easily on 90% electricity.

Being an engineer, I know full well how reality is rather different
from the kind of logic that
somehow seems to survive in the worlds of talk shows and political advocacy.

To learn what real engineers think about these issues, look at least at:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp

IEEE -- the world's largest society of engineers and scientists --
strongly supports the idea of
electrification, as you can see from any of our slides. (Click on
names to see them.)
But as engineers, we have an obligation to present the truth as
objectively as we can.
We strongly support the research which has maximum POTENTIAL to lead
to all-electric cars
acceptable to the consumer. HOWEVER, it would be grossly dishonest at
this time to pretend
we know for sure that we are ready to produce batteries good enough
and cheap enough
to allow an all-electric car and truck system acceptable to the
consumer. And most of us
think it would be both unrealistic and undesirable to propose to
FORCE everyone to buy
cars with 40-mile driving range when 300-mile range is available elsewhere.

In fuzzy bar-room type thinking, people seem to feel you have to
worship the omnipotence and
omniscience of the One True Fuel, or else you must be a traitor, a
heretic and an enemy.
OK -- I declare that electricity is not the One True God. IEEE likewise.

But -- we will never be able to solve the complex energy problems we
face if we descend into
that kind of bar-room thinking and intellectual dishonesty.

It is not proper or politically realistic to imagine the US
government picking winners and losers
between oil and electricity. More precisely -- the only politically
realistic possibility out there
right now like that is continued enforcement of the monopoly by the
fuel which is presently in charge,
good old fashioned conventional oil. The most powerful advocate in
the US government right now
happens to represent a company with headquarters in Dubai.

Our only realistic hope is to build a coalition which represents the
more traditional American policy
of COMPETITION -- and that means opening up the market to stuff we might
like
and stuff we might not like, and let the consumers decide.

IN ADDITION: when people draw extreme conclusions based on the
assumption that methane, ethane, ethanol and methanol
are all the same thing, or that hydrazine is the same thing as
hydrazine hydrate with additives,
then we are in very deep trouble. I understand how people might not
know about these things, but to act dogmatic
AS IF one knew while getting it totally wrong... will not help us
solve the life-or-death problems we face.

========================================

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 9/23/2007
1:53 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 9/23/2007
1:53 PM

RE: more on alternate fuels that can be made from electricity

Paul

 

I think if you wanted to “intrigue” the public into considering H/H or even just Hydrazine, you’d have to get a racing team or two to give it a try.

A Hydrazine NASCAR would do wonders to promote this, if the organizers would allow it.

 

RG

 

---

From: Paul J. Werbos, Dr. [mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:32 PM
To: BobKrone@aol.com; richard@cgpublishing.com
Cc: HowlBloom@aol.com; robin.snelson@gmail.com; amaraa@gmail.com; bobcitron@mac.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net; jz@howardbloom.net; BobKrone@aol.com; Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; tommatula@hotmail.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com; dlivings@davidlivingston.com; bmh@evolve.org; ricktumlinson@gmail.com; mindsmagic@nc.rr.com; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; bpittman@alliancespace.net; John.c.mankins@artemisinnovation.com; wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; joberg@houston.rr.com; kcox12@houston.rr.com; george@nss.org; hjarrett@futron.com; Borntobewired311@aol.com; mitc1615@bellsouth.net; edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com; nansens@centurytel.net; Wingod@assure.com; cacarberry@yahoo.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com; sontermj@tpg.com.au; jthalterman@comcast.net; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov; phoebehelefante@gmail.com; johng@telascience.org; lzielinski@comcast.net; Jamesmsnead@aol.com; willjwatson@gmail.com; joshua@xprize.org; info@hobbyspace.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com; Manny@Lunarexplorer.com; gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; jediarizona@yahoo.com; Aweisbrod@aol.com; charleslurio@mac.com; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; CRD9138@aol.com; rmains@mainsgate.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org; arcoscielos@yahoo.com; michael@clauss.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net; jeroen@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; alx@ilm.com; jeffh@ilm.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; bfrey@ilm.com; chrism@ilm.com; wmccoy@ilm.com; scurran@ilm.com; hyman@ilm.com; sanders@ilm.com; jamieson@ilm.com; mattpb@ilm.com; lanny@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com; chrisbarnett@mac.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com; toddda2@todddaniele.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com; missingpixels@gmail.com; mikedludlam@hotmail.com; jlowden@skysound.com; lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; info@ellenmeijers.com; george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com; ellen@ellenmeijers.com; ericberm@bermweb.net; anewall@comcast.net; kimdamian@comcast.net; damian@ilm.com; amtravis@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; aec@ilm.com; brianf@ilm.com; samurai@ilm.com; dslavin@ilm.com; tallguy@ilm.com; sel@ilm.com; smack@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com; edillin@lucasfilm.com; mho@ilm.com; cape@ilm.com; moh@ilm.com
Subject: more on alternate fuels that can be made from electricity
Importance: High

 

1. I am checking with auto company people, and will do some checks myself,
on the idea of the "HH economy" -- making hydrazine hydrate instead of hydrocarbons,
from electricity from space (or solar farms or nuclear plants for that matter).

2. FYI, HH is basically the same as ethanol with C replaced by N (and of course two H's gone).

NOW -- IT TURNS OUT TO BE A GREAT AVIATION FUEL TOO....

From Wikipedia:
Hydrazine was first used as a rocket fuel during World War II for the Messerschmitt Me 163 (the first jet fighter plane), under the name B-Stoff (hydrazine hydrate) and in a mixture with methanol (M-Stoff) and hydrogen peroxide called C-Stoff.

They say "rocket fuel," but they pumped it into the world's first jet fighter with no trouble...

In fact, maybe it would make sense as an alternative to hydrocarbons in one stage of an airplane-like RLV as well.

----------

It would be interesting if aircraft, both civilian and military, could be early users or adopters of the fuel,
if it were ramped up. But of course, airlines would take a long hard look at HH cost versus jet fuel cost
before doing anything. If energy from space could help reduce the cost of making HH, it could be decisive...
especially as the cost of crude oil keeps rising... And it would be nice for the US military to
have some fuel flexibility.

Best of luck,
 
   Paul

Re: [global-energy] X-Prize for the Moon Competition

  A great way to encourage development of low cost access to space, (and help SSP), would be to assist in the Google Lunar X-Prize challenge by paying half or more of the launch costs (to the Moon) these intrepid competitors face?  That would help expand the market for launch to high orbit as well as many other space capabilities. (Article Below)
 
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33978/113

Carnegie Mellon to participate in Google Lunar X-Prize challenge

By Wolfgang Gruener

Pittsburgh  – September 20, 2007 – William Whittaker, researcher from Carnegie Mellon University is taking aim at Google's recently announced Lunar X-Prize and its $20 million grand prize. Whittaker has already has built a next-gen lunar rover for NASA, also announced today.   Carnegie Mellon's Scarab rover  The Lunar X-Prize apparently has found its first official entry with Carnegie Mellon, as Whittaker from the university's Robotics Institute said that he is assembling a team to compete for the grand prize. The Lunar X-Prize challenges engineers and entrepreneurs around the world to develop a low-cost robot that is capable of landing on the moon and accomplishing a few experiments. Whittaker has some unique experience in this field as he already has developed a new lunar rover for NASA. Called Scarab, the rover is not expected to leave the surface of the Earth, but rather serve as a demonstration platform for new technologies that may be required to "find concentrations of hydrogen, possibly water and other volatile chemicals on the moon that could be mined to produce fuel, water and air that are essential for supporting lunar outposts," according to statement from Carnegie Mellon. Much of Scarab is built around the thought to operate in a hostile environment as power efficient as possible. "A lunar prospector will face a hostile environment in the perpetual darkness of craters at the moon's southern pole, where ground temperatures are minus 385 degrees and no energy source is at hand," stated Whittaker. "It's a place where humans can't work effectively, but where Scarab will thrive, even while operating on the electrical power required to illuminate a 100-watt light bulb." The rover has been designed to be agile enough to travel miles over sandy and soil, but also serve as a stable drilling platform. Operating for months in total darkness, it cannot rely on solar energy or batteries for power. Instead uses a radioisotope source that places a premium on energy efficiency. When rolling over a sandy surface, Scarab isn't exactly what you would call quick. The rover travels at a maximum speed of four inches per second, which translates into 0.02 mph. However, it has interesting features that help it to reach its destination eventually. For example, the 5 1/2-foot-by-3-foot body can be lifted 21 inches above the ground to master obstacles. To navigate in total darkness, Scarab relies on new, low-power, laser-based sensors. Whittaker also highlighted a newly developed drill integrated into Scarab. It is built right into the middle of the rover – and not attached to an arm as in previous rovers. To achieve maximum power efficiency the rover can lower itself to the ground to generate a stable drilling platform and use its body weight to increase the efficiency of the drilling process. To optimize power efficiency, the robot must be as light as possible - but to operate the coring drill, the vehicle also has to be massive enough to apply sufficient downward pressure on the drill and counter the torque of the rotating drill, Carnegie Mellon noted. It is estimated that Scarab must weigh at least 250 kilograms, or about 550 pounds. "It's a good combination vehicle that does two things very well," said John Caruso, project manager at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. "Scarab is successful because it achieves the design simplicity of a single-purpose machine while accomplishing the multiple purposes of driving and drilling in darkness."

  When they feel the heat they will see the light,

   Darel Preble    Chair, SSPW    Psalms 19:4-5    office 770.603.4883    home 770.477.9143    http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/  

hydrazine hydrate

One of you stated:

>Look, High altitude wind can make 10,000 times more energy than the
>current human energy budget. So can deep geothermal. And solar
>is also adequate. All can be converted to electricity, and we can
>run transportation quite easily on 90% electricity.

Being an engineer, I know full well how reality is rather different
from the kind of logic that
somehow seems to survive in the worlds of talk shows and political advocacy.

To learn what real engineers think about these issues, look at least at:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp

IEEE -- the world's largest society of engineers and scientists --
strongly supports the idea of
electrification, as you can see from any of our slides. (Click on
names to see them.)
But as engineers, we have an obligation to present the truth as
objectively as we can.
We strongly support the research which has maximum POTENTIAL to lead
to all-electric cars
acceptable to the consumer. HOWEVER, it would be grossly dishonest at
this time to pretend
we know for sure that we are ready to produce batteries good enough
and cheap enough
to allow an all-electric car and truck system acceptable to the
consumer. And most of us
think it would be both unrealistic and undesirable to propose to
FORCE everyone to buy
cars with 40-mile driving range when 300-mile range is available elsewhere.

In fuzzy bar-room type thinking, people seem to feel you have to
worship the omnipotence and
omniscience of the One True Fuel, or else you must be a traitor, a
heretic and an enemy.
OK -- I declare that electricity is not the One True God. IEEE likewise.

But -- we will never be able to solve the complex energy problems we
face if we descend into
that kind of bar-room thinking and intellectual dishonesty.

It is not proper or politically realistic to imagine the US
government picking winners and losers
between oil and electricity. More precisely -- the only politically
realistic possibility out there
right now like that is continued enforcement of the monopoly by the
fuel which is presently in charge,
good old fashioned conventional oil. The most powerful advocate in
the US government right now
happens to represent a company with headquarters in Dubai.

Our only realistic hope is to build a coalition which represents the
more traditional American policy
of COMPETITION -- and that means opening up the market to stuff we might like
and stuff we might not like, and let the consumers decide.

IN ADDITION: when people draw extreme conclusions based on the
assumption that methane, ethane, ethanol and methanol
are all the same thing, or that hydrazine is the same thing as
hydrazine hydrate with additives,
then we are in very deep trouble. I understand how people might not
know about these things, but to act dogmatic
AS IF one knew while getting it totally wrong... will not help us
solve the life-or-death problems we face.

========================================

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

RE: Drilling the Sky -- link to fuel flexibility in cars

At 12:55 PM 9/23/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:

Paul,
 
Hydrazine is nasty stuff. We use it on the Space Shuttle to fuel the APUs for hydraulic powers and it is one of the safety hazards that must be carefully managed and controlled due to its nasty corrosive chemical properties. It can easily damage your electrical wire insulations and even your health...... So as you said, additives must be added for safety reasons if massive use of hydrazine is allowed by general publics for cars and yet we don�t know how expensive or how hazardous the additives can be?
 

I went through a few iterations on this just yesterday,

The key is that it's HH, hydrazine HYDRATE, not hydrazine.
The difference between hydrazine and hydrazine hydrate is essentially
the same as the difference between ethane and ethanol...
a huge difference when it comes to safety.

It's clear that NAIST and Daihatsu have done the due diligence on safety
and on additives.

Of course -- gasoline, ethanol and methanol are ALSO disasters without additives.

If we could generate electricity for baseload needs regardless from terrestrial or space based solar installations,
why need we mess around with any liquid fuels such as hydrazine or methanol etc. for cars?

I was referring to what I would propose as a game plan for Exxon.

In the long-term, we don't KNOW which fuel is BEST -- or whether liquid fuels
will be better than electricity. I was **NOT** saying I would advocate a commitment
to HH either by me or by the US government. However -- if propose to Exxon that they
use electricity (from space or anywhere else) to make liquid fuels, we do need to
ask what a core representative set of possible liquid fuels should be.

**IF** we can get cars able to use HH as well as gasoline,ethanol and methanol,
at relatively low additional cost, I WOULD propose that Exxon and we unite to push for
a rapid development of GEMH-flexible plug-in hybrids as soon as possible, so that
the market opens up for E85, M85 and HH as well as gasoline... whether
they like electricity or not. And I propose that we agree to incentives
for GEMH flexibility as such in new cars, apart from the additional incentives for plug-in capability.
The goal is COMPETITION, so that the ultimate choice
will be made by the market, not by us picking winners and losers.

And I would propose that all those who have talked about "hydrogen economy"
or hydrogen as a possible car fuel switch to HH instead. It is a more realistic route to
the same goal.

And sure, I would recommend that Exxon HEDGE its investments in liquid fuel
with a well-strategized investment in a new form of electricity, energy from space.
But at the present time, it would be a bit much to ask Exxon to totally
give up on the long-term possibilities for liquid fuels or "hydrogen".
The opportunity for them is to HEDGE (and refine) that existing commitment,
to allow for massive long-term uncertainties in world markets and politics.

Best of luck,

    Paul

RE: Drilling the Sky -- link to fuel flexibility in cars

Paul,

 

Hydrazine is nasty stuff. We use it on the Space Shuttle to fuel the APUs for hydraulic powers and it is one of the safety hazards that must be carefully managed and controlled due to its nasty corrosive chemical properties. It can easily damage your electrical wire insulations and even your health...... So as you said, additives must be added for safety reasons if massive use of hydrazine is allowed by general publics for cars and yet we don’t know how expensive or how hazardous the additives can be?

 

If we could generate electricity for baseload needs regardless from terrestrial or space based solar installations, why need we mess around with any liquid fuels such as hydrazine or methanol etc. for cars? We don’t have to feed the world economy based on the inventions or existing paradigms of the centuries-old “combustion” technologies that our great grand fathers had discovered and inspired us long ago? Can’t we just all plugging our cars into the energy of the Sun? In my humble views, the future cars and transportations should all use electricity directly and directly generated from the energy of our Sun. What could a better “fuel efficiency” or “fuel economies” can beat the efficiency of electrical powers (either thermal, electrical or chemical) directly come form the sun? Yes, the technology isn’t quite there yet today, but if you look into the trend and the steps of solar technology breakthroughs (relative to the government/private R&D funds invested) in the past decade, it’s not all that hard for big automakers to understand that investing in cars capable of plugging into the solar-electrical “fuel” stations anywhere will be the future of their immeasurable profitability, isn’t it?

 

In short, isn’t it now time for us to start breaking away from our great grand father’s old paradigm of a “combustion world economy” to the forever sustainable “solar-electrical world economy”??!!   If the US isn’t going to lead the way for this paradigm shift for a solar-electric powered world economy, I am sure other nations elsewhere on the planet is going to lead the way. However, the odds for us (Americans) to lead this next industrial revolution don’t look so good at all in my views, and this is precisely because we (Americans) are just too much into the Carbon-based energy resources (including the consequential wasteful life styles) in our overall economical infrastructures, and it’s going to cost us too much either economically or politically to make a change.

 

Historically and retrospectively speaking, our politically system (just a few attributes of our systems) doesn’t seem to support or favor any “revolutionary” changes in all aspects.... Just a simple example: the use of fiber optical based internet popularity grow from nearly zero to explosive proportion in China in just very short time because of their low costs for average citizens, while we Americans have to “innovate” all the way from our old copper-based infrastructure to “dial-ups” to DSL, ADSL to cable and it costs average Americans 3 or more times monthly to get connected with the rest of world. And, of course there is the other example in transportation infrastructures.... So, you get the idea? Often times the raise or fall of a power of individuals or a nation is not entirely depend on whatever the efforts an individual or a nation could be taken, sometimes, it depends almost entirely on fortune or misfortunes given the timing or historical moments/events.... In my views, the rapid raise and domination of the Japanese economy (same was true of our economy) after the atomic disasters (or WW-II) was partially due to rapid sunk of their nation to the bottom of the power/economic status. On the same token, may be the raise of India or China economies were also due to their poor economic status for too long ever since their last glorious civilizations in history. It reminds me of an old Chinese saying: “success or failure depends on human endeavors, but the ultimate prosperous depends on the intent of our heavenly God”.  Sorry for drifting the topics a bit too far, as we have got to love history.

 

Best of luck to us all,

 

Feng

 

 

From: Paul J. Werbos, Dr. [mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 11:47 AM
To: BobKrone@aol.com; richard@cgpublishing.com
Cc: HowlBloom@aol.com; robin.snelson@gmail.com; amaraa@gmail.com; bobcitron@mac.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net; jz@howardbloom.net; BobKrone@aol.com; Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; tommatula@hotmail.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com; dlivings@davidlivingston.com; bmh@evolve.org; ricktumlinson@gmail.com; mindsmagic@nc.rr.com; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; bpittman@alliancespace.net; John.c.mankins@artemisinnovation.com; wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; joberg@houston.rr.com; kcox12@houston.rr.com; george@nss.org; hjarrett@futron.com; Borntobewired311@aol.com; mitc1615@bellsouth.net; edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com; nansens@centurytel.net; Wingod@assure.com; cacarberry@yahoo.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com; sontermj@tpg.com.au; jthalterman@comcast.net; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov; phoebehelefante@gmail.com; johng@telascience.org; lzielinski@comcast.net; Jamesmsnead@aol.com; willjwatson@gmail.com; joshua@xprize.org; info@hobbyspace.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com; Manny@Lunarexplorer.com; gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; jediarizona@yahoo.com; Aweisbrod@aol.com; charleslurio@mac.com; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; CRD9138@aol.com; rmains@mainsgate.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org; arcoscielos@yahoo.com; michael@clauss.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net; jeroen@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; alx@ilm.com; jeffh@ilm.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; bfrey@ilm.com; chrism@ilm.com; wmccoy@ilm.com; scurran@ilm.com; hyman@ilm.com; sanders@ilm.com; jamieson@ilm.com; mattpb@ilm.com; lanny@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com; chrisbarnett@mac.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com; toddda2@todddaniele.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com; missingpixels@gmail.com; mikedludlam@hotmail.com; jlowden@skysound.com; lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; info@ellenmeijers.com; george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com; ellen@ellenmeijers.com; ericberm@bermweb.net; anewall@comcast.net; kimdamian@comcast.net; damian@ilm.com; amtravis@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; aec@ilm.com; brianf@ilm.com; samurai@ilm.com; dslavin@ilm.com; tallguy@ilm.com; sel@ilm.com; smack@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com; edillin@lucasfilm.com; mho@ilm.com; cape@ilm.com; moh@ilm.com
Subject: Drilling the Sky -- link to fuel flexibility in cars

 

The US **COULD** shift to total GEM flexibility in all
new cars in 2-4 years, if we really pushed. It's well-established technology.
Brazil shifted from near zero fuel flexibility to >50% GE flexibility in
new cars in about two years, and the US auto companies all know how to do it.
If oil companies supported it, strong motion could start in two months.

**WITH** GEM fuel flexibility and intelligent engine control...
it may not be too hard to use a zero-carbon liquid fuel as well.

I know that GEM flexibility is easy, and how. I do not know how
much extra it would take (if anything), to get to GEMH flexibility --
gasoline, E85, M85 AND HYDRAZINE, if hydrazine should
be the liquid fuel of interest.

Cars have run on hydrazine in Germany. (At least by Kordesch...)

Why hydrazine? As a LIQUID FUEL, it can be stored in the same kind
of gas tank that golds gasoline, E85 or M85 -- though I don't know
whether today's gas tanks in cars are corrosion-resistant enough to do it.
Still, I do know they can handle M85, so  hydrazine may fit too.
(If not, I don't know how hard it would be to upgrade the tanks... or whether
there is a comparable fuel.)

UNLIKE hydrogen, hydrazine could probably be moved around in the same kind of
infrastructure that could handle methanol. I have heard a chief economist
of a major oil company say... it would cost at least an order of magnitude more money for them to
move to a hydrogen infrastructure than to a methanol (or flexible) infrastructure.

WHY THIS MATTERS TO US: pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is expensive (and basically
unproven, unless you count biofuels). CO2 from coal plant emissions is messy.
But -- NONCARBON liquid fuels like hydrazine or ammonia DO NOT REQUIRE
a source of carbon. Also, the chemistry of making ammonia, say, in bulk,
is very well known and efficient in mass production.

I do not know what kind of additives would be needed to make hydrazine or ammonia or
other noncarbon liquids as acceptable as gasoline or M85 for use in cars.
There is a lot of unreliable conventional wisdom out there about all these fuels. 
(For methanol, I KNOW things are fine, based mainly on the survey review by Roberta
Nichols of Ford posted at www.werbos.com/energy.htm. But ADDITIVES ARE ESSENTIAL --
pure methanol would not be acceptable for the mass market.)
Someone really needs to look into this.

IN SUM... for a company like Exxon, maybe it is time to start thinking about
"the hydrazine economy" as a long-term alternative to "the hydrogen economy."

Using energy from space (or earth-based solar power), it would probably be a lot cheaper and easier to
make stuff like hydrazine than stuff like hydrocarbons!!!!

And it is zero-CO2...

RE: Drilling the Sky -- is it real and what is Exxon's interest

At 11:51 AM 9/22/2007, Mike Snead wrote:

The logistics support cost is more than just the raw recurring cost of operation of the fully-reusable space access systems.  The logistics support cost must include the entire infrastructure required to establish and sustain the space-based solar power energy infrastructure.  Hu Davis and I are working on a mission model for this now to help identify the top-level issues.
 
Hot structures technologies have been advancing since the 1950s. 

Some aspects, but not the complete suite of capabilities.

If we follow the natural path of least resistance, we can be sure
of something about as relevant as the CEV vehicle -- but
without time to fix the problem.

By the way, I did vet the key technical points with Don Paul. You know his facility?

Best of luck to us all,

   Paul

more on alternate fuels that can be made from electricity

1. I am checking with auto company people, and will do some checks myself,
on the idea of the "HH economy" -- making hydrazine hydrate instead of hydrocarbons,
from electricity from space (or solar farms or nuclear plants for that matter).

2. FYI, HH is basically the same as ethanol with C replaced by N (and of course two H's gone).

NOW -- IT TURNS OUT TO BE A GREAT AVIATION FUEL TOO....

From Wikipedia:
Hydrazine was first used as a rocket fuel during World War II for the Messerschmitt Me 163 (the first jet fighter plane), under the name B-Stoff (hydrazine hydrate) and in a mixture with methanol (M-Stoff) and hydrogen peroxide called C-Stoff.

They say "rocket fuel," but they pumped it into the world's first jet fighter with no trouble...

In fact, maybe it would make sense as an alternative to hydrocarbons in one stage of an airplane-like RLV as well.

----------

It would be interesting if aircraft, both civilian and military, could be early users or adopters of the fuel,
if it were ramped up. But of course, airlines would take a long hard look at HH cost versus jet fuel cost
before doing anything. If energy from space could help reduce the cost of making HH, it could be decisive...
especially as the cost of crude oil keeps rising... And it would be nice for the US military to
have some fuel flexibility.

Best of luck,
 
   Paul

a new game plan for Exxon

http://www.automotiveworld.com/APA/content.asp?contentid=63588

Look at that!

To follow up, I decided to do a quick google on "hydrazine automotive".

Maybe a hydrazine economy is a lot closer than I thought. Hydrazine hydrate, to be precise.

It can be used in fuel cells, as they say, but it can also be used with heat engines of many kinds.
(It burns.) And they HAVE looked into safety issues.

By the way, NAIST is a VERY serious place! In April 2005, I got to attend their international conference
on power electronics, where top people from Toyota played a central role. Roughly speaking...
it is a government agency, playing a central role in research... you might say that NAIST is to
technology in Japan what NIH is to medicine in the US...

If I ran Exxon, I would probably start announcing a new vision of a hydrazine-hydrogen economy...
and I'd put money into BOTH energy from space and earth-based solar thermal power
to get ready for massive domestic production of this new liquid fuel.

Best of luck to us all,

    Paul

RE: Drilling the Sky -- is it real and what is Exxon's interest

The logistics support cost is more than just the raw recurring cost of operation of the fully-reusable space access systems.  The logistics support cost must include the entire infrastructure required to establish and sustain the space-based solar power energy infrastructure.  Hu Davis and I are working on a mission model for this now to help identify the top-level issues.

 

Hot structures technologies have been advancing since the 1950s.  There is no single solution for reusable space access as the specific system design is dependent on a number of design variables including, but not limited to, propulsion modes, staging, staging velocities, design life of the primary structure, damage tolerance and durability requirements, approach to structurally integrating and insulating the propellant tanks, choice of propellants, aerodynamic configuration for desired cross-range and landing characteristics, turn-around time, pad time, ground transport, available non-destructive inspection methods, debris environment, payload integration approach, degree of turn-around inspection and servicing, material availability, and manufacturing capability.

 

As was identified in the recent SBSP assessment for the NSSO, achieving the design low cost space access necessary for affordable SBSP assembly and operations is probably best approached through a three step process involving: (1) a near-term Gen 1 two-stage, fully-reusable aerospaceplane designed for general cargo and passenger transport (IOC 2016-2018); (2) a Gen 1.5 block upgrade to the Gen 1 system to optimize the system for the initial SBSP satellite component transport and reduce recurring costs (IOC 2021-2023) ; and (3) a Gen 2 system, again designed for SBSP component delivery and to further reduce recurring costs with a new "clean sheet" design using more advanced technologies available in 2015-2017 (IOC 2028-2030).  My estimate for the FOC recurring costs are: Gen 1 about $800-1000 per lb; Gen 1.5 about $300-400; Gen 2 about $100-200.  Details of the first are addressed in the cost paper on my web site.  Details of the second will be in the fact sheet for the Gen 1.5 system that will be posted in the next couple of weeks.

 

Mike Snead

---------------

James Michael "Mike" Snead, P.E.

Telephone: 937-684-4490

Primary e-mail: mike@mikesnead.net

Alt. E-mail: jamesmsnead@aol.com

Web site: http://mikesnead.net

Blog: http//spacefaringamerica.net

 

---

From: Paul J. Werbos, Dr. [mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 10:16
To: BobKrone@aol.com; richard@cgpublishing.com
Cc: HowlBloom@aol.com; robin.snelson@gmail.com; amaraa@gmail.com; bobcitron@mac.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net; jz@howardbloom.net; BobKrone@aol.com; Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; tommatula@hotmail.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com; dlivings@davidlivingston.com; bmh@evolve.org; ricktumlinson@gmail.com; mindsmagic@nc.rr.com; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; bpittman@alliancespace.net; John.c.mankins@artemisinnovation.com; wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; joberg@houston.rr.com; kcox12@houston.rr.com; george@nss.org; hjarrett@futron.com; Borntobewired311@aol.com; mitc1615@bellsouth.net; edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com; nansens@centurytel.net; Wingod@assure.com; cacarberry@yahoo.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com; sontermj@tpg.com.au; jthalterman@comcast.net; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov; phoebehelefante@gmail.com; johng@telascience.org; lzielinski@comcast.net; Jamesmsnead@aol.com; willjwatson@gmail.com; joshua@xprize.org; info@hobbyspace.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com; Manny@Lunarexplorer.com; gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; jediarizona@yahoo.com; Aweisbrod@aol.com; charleslurio@mac.com; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; CRD9138@aol.com; rmains@mainsgate.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org; arcoscielos@yahoo.com; michael@clauss.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net; jeroen@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; alx@ilm.com; jeffh@ilm.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; bfrey@ilm.com; chrism@ilm.com; wmccoy@ilm.com; scurran@ilm.com; hyman@ilm.com; sanders@ilm.com; jamieson@ilm.com; mattpb@ilm.com; lanny@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com; chrisbarnett@mac.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com; zsherman@earthlink.net; toddda2@todddaniele.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com; missingpixels@gmail.com; mikedludlam@hotmail.com; jlowden@skysound.com; lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; info@ellenmeijers.com; george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com; ellen@ellenmeijers.com; ericberm@bermweb.net; anewall@comcast.net; kimdamian@comcast.net; damian@ilm.com; amtravis@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; aec@ilm.com; brianf@ilm.com; samurai@ilm.com; dslavin@ilm.com; tallguy@ilm.com; sel@ilm.com; smack@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com; edillin@lucasfilm.com; mho@ilm.com; cape@ilm.com; moh@ilm.com
Subject: Drilling the Sky -- is it real and what is Exxon's interest

First, I want to thank the folks who have briefed me in detail about some aspects of these discussions.
More and more it gets hard for me to know when people would prefer to be given credit, or their names kept
confidential... etc.. So let me just talk about the technical/economic reality for now...

Second -- Exxon is a business and they depend on economic calculations a lot more than
the entertainment business, for example. (This is a COMPARISON -- please don't read in more
than I have said.) The "business case" for "drilling the sky" has to
be a lot more solid than the usual fluffy NASDAQ IPO stuff to get very far with the folks
who decide on real investments (unless they think they can justify some small change from the PR budget).

Third: Any decision by Exxon or Chevron on something this big would have to fit into their overall corporate strategy.
But right now, their overall strategy is in flux. They haven't yet really figured out how to adapt to some very jarring changes
and trends all over the world. Of course the same thing is true of the auto makers and the US government -- but those
two are very far along in a new dialogue. We haven't really had the same kind of dialogue about the interests and options
of the oil companies in a massively changing world.

Fourth: I don't think that drilling the sky by making fuel in offshore platforms makes any sense with the menu
of technologies any of us have available right now. The reason is that we are talking about CARBON-BASED fuels for now --
which requires a source of carbon. It is very expensive to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. It is a lot
cheaper to start with a more concentrated source of carbon dioxide -- like the emissions of the many huge coal plants
in Four Corners in Utah.  Those plants are close enough to desert land that would be a relatively easy place
to get a rectenna sited .. and there is no shortage of power lines in the area.

Fifth -- once we have such a source of CO2, and water, and electricity ... I don't think we know enough chemistry yet to know what
the optimum process is for getting car fuel out of those inputs. In fact, I asked that question about a year ago to a guy named Siirola
at Tennessee Eastmann, who was formerly president of AIChE -- the American Institute for Chemical Engineer(ing). My impression
is that this is a research project -- a good research project, but a research project. At the moment, there is a miniboom in trying
to use algae to convert these emission streams plus water and sunlight to fuel. We do have to show we can do better.
 Because the efficiency of photosynthesis is down around 3% or so, we probably can do better... but it's not trivial.
One question: to reach, say, 80% of theoretically possible efficiency in making car fuels, would we need new catalysts?
Would we need "RF chemistry," the use of optimally crafted pulses of laser light or microwaves, etc.?
Nobody sane would invest billions without knowing the story about this aspect.

Sixth -- it is highly unlikely that straight-chain hydrocarbons are the car fuel that would give maximum efficiency here.

But here is where we start butting into strategic plans. When oil companies build refineries, they have no problem
with the idea that they want the plants to be as efficient as possible. When it's their money, why waste it?

But have the big US oil companies accepted the idea that they are in the business of fuel processing and distribution
in general? They now accept that unconventional sources of oil like tar sands and shale are THEIR business
opportunity, however constrained. But what about liquids from coal? What about biofuels? What about
the stuff we are talking about?

On the car side, it is relatively easy and cheap to redesign cars (AT THE FACTORY) so that the driver can choose, from
day to day, whether  to fill up his/her car with gasoline OR "ethanol" (E85) OR methanol (M85). People argue whether
it is $100 or $200 per car, but that's the range, and it may even be less. The car companies would be happy to do it,
given modest incentives... but what will the oil companies do? This is crucial to us and to them.

I heard last Wednesday that there are major incentives for GEM fuel flexibility in the works, which may make it to
the final conference bill on energy this year **IF** they don't get derailed. But many oil company LOBBYISTS
in DC feel morally obligated to oppose anything that might reduce Saudi Arabia's revenue from crude oil.
This is a serious problem. It is also possible that they don't have a clear understanding of where Exxon's present and
future profits may come from, in part due to strange accounting related to SEC and IRS stuff.

IF we are entering a new era of competition in supplying car fuel (as US national survival badly needs), it behooves
Exxon to think about ECONOMIC competition with electricity and perhaps even biofuels, rather than counting on
corrupt politicians to outlaw the competition.

To compete with electricity -- the challenge is how to get cheaper liquid fuels, to input to their big distribution systems.

To do that, they should affirmatively SUPPORT the push for GEM fuel flexibility, which gives them the option of making
cheaper liquid fuels for the long haul, without having to send so much money to OPEC.

And then, when they do that...

it probably ISN'T the straight chain hydrocarbon that would make the most sense in a few years.

In fact, straight chain hydrocarbon requires MORE CAPITAL than a messier liquid fuel.

Since we don't know the chemistry here yet... let me use an analogy.
When the input stream is CO and H2 ("syngas")... it is well-known
that we CAN make straight, pure hydrocarbons, but only after expensive
synfuels processing, very capital intensive.  Exxon could save a lot
of money by getting rid of all this purity nonsense. More precisely:
capital cost and total cost per Btu of liquid fuel generated can be a lot less,
if one gets rid of the purity constraint. If CARS are GEM fuel flexible
(with intelligent engine control, which is certainly known to GM, Ford, Toyota,
Caterpillar and Bosch at least), they can basically handle any mix of
liquid fuel which is not more corrosive than M85. That's a big space.
If one tries to get the maximum BTU per dollar... one would be able
to spend a lot less money on processing, by producing a fuel mix
a lot closer to what the syngas "wants" to produce. 
I would call this "optimal corrosive Fischer-Tropsch liquids."

Using this kind of strategy -- the fuel produced using space-based electricity would be cheaper.
(Of course, the same thing goes for fuel produced from coal or remote natural gas.
If it's just them and not us who take up this opportunity, then it will be harder for us to compete.)

==================================================

At the of the day, however, Exxon will certainly notice that the electricity from space will
be ridiculously expensive if we don't move past bullshit and get a real technically viable
solution to the access-to-space problem. With $1000 per pound access, there is no
way we can compete with even 17 cents per kwh solar troughs in the deserts
near four corners. Even if you add the costs of 24-hour storage and transmission nationwide,
we still couldn't compete with earth-based solar farms. False claims and PR and
enthusiasm for heavy lifters won't change this reality; they would only make
Exxon legitimately suspicious of anything we say in this community.

In my view -- the best hope of overcoming this serious show-stopper is if Exxon
itself could take a profitable position, not in the glitzy >$1000-per pound options, or even
in the tile-and-blanket  vehicle now under development in Seattle, but
in the solid hot structures RLV technology I have talked about many times before.
 We NEED $200/pound even to get to 17 cents per kwh, in any of the serious life-cycle cost
analyses out there, and that is our only serious hope of that. And... it open up
a $50 billion/year near-term market long before SSP itself. (If we believe certain figures
from the Financial Times.)

Yes, that may be hard... but sometimes the hard way is the only way that can really work.
Engineering reality doesn't always allow "cheap shots."

Best of luck to us all,

     Paul